The US Department of Justice and Google made their closing arguments Monday in an ongoing federal court case that centers on allegations of monopolistic behavior within the online advertising market.
The trial, taking place in Alexandria, Virginia, has examined Google’s dominant role in brokering display ads—those common ad boxes that appear on websites.
The Justice Department, which filed the lawsuit in early 2023 with the support of several state attorneys general, argues that Google’s control over the ad tech market is harmful to small businesses, advertisers, and consumers. Federal prosecutors claim that the company has “rigged” the online advertising auctions for over a decade, driving up prices and limiting competition. Justice Department attorney Aaron Teitelbaum argued that Google’s behavior has distorted the ad market to the detriment of publishers and advertisers.
In contrast, Google’s legal team defended the company’s actions, asserting that Google competes in a highly competitive environment and has succeeded by offering a superior product. Karen Dunn, Google’s lead attorney, described the company’s conduct as a response to “competitive forces” and innovation, not anti-competitive behavior. She emphasized that Google’s dominance in the ad market is the result of offering services that clients value.
The case comes at a time when Google is already embroiled in another significant antitrust lawsuit related to its search engine. If the Justice Department wins this case, it could force Google to divest its lucrative advertising unit, a decision that could have far-reaching effects on the company’s operations. This outcome would further compound Google’s legal challenges, as it also faces scrutiny over its search monopoly, with potential remedies that could include the sale of its Chrome browser.
US District Judge Leonie M. Brinkema, who is overseeing the case, has not indicated how she might rule. During closing arguments, she raised questions about the evidence presented by both sides, particularly regarding the lack of direct testimony from small businesses, a key group that the government claims has been harmed by Google’s conduct. She also expressed concerns over Google’s failure to retain relevant documents, which could affect the weight of some internal email evidence Google used to defend itself.
In its argument, the Justice Department pointed to an internal email from a Google executive, suggesting that the company’s goal was to “do to display advertising what Google did to search,” implying a strategy aimed at achieving dominance across multiple digital markets.
The trial has also focused on Google’s advertising technology, which includes products like DoubleClick and AdExchange, both of which the Justice Department claims give Google an unfair advantage by controlling both the demand and supply sides of the ad market. Google argues that its integrated system benefits consumers by lowering prices, noting that its take rate—the percentage of each transaction it retains—has decreased over time.
A ruling in this case is expected by the end of the year. If Google is found to have violated antitrust laws, the court will then consider what remedies should be imposed, which could include forcing the company to change its business practices or sell parts of its ad tech operations. While the trial is winding down, it is only one piece of Google’s broader legal challenges, which include other investigations in the US and Europe related to its dominance in the tech industry.
The Washington Post, the Associated Press, and the Verge contributed to this report.
